Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Smallwood


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no dissenting !votes. The Bushranger One ping only 15:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Smallwood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1. new BLP lacking an independant source, 2. procedural reason - created despite AfC Submission declined on 11 October 2013 "Lack of sources to establish notability" - shouldn't this be taken back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Smallwood? Widefox ; talk 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC) (clarified 2 reasons, 2nd being more of an issue) Widefox ; talk 11:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator per taking EXT as RS (see below) Widefox ; talk 11:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Web of Science lists several highly-cited publications (highest citation counts: 243, 205, 73; total cites over 1000, h-index of 16). As usual, GScholar gives much higher results. In any case, for a young researcher like Smallwood, this is quite good. The article could indeed have benefited from more work before going "live". --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Pass of WP:Prof on Google scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Care to say how (per WP:DISCUSSAFD / WP:JUSTAPOLICY)? Widefox ; talk 11:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment on modified nom: Creating an article despite a declined AFC, without any further explanation, is less than elegant, but not a reason for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. In which case, I have no objection if it meets C1 "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" - none of which I see here or in the article. 2. Either the AfC was set too high, or this same current sourcing is too low. More than inelegant, seems inefficient we prevent AfC moving to main space for lack of sources but allow it created here (for unspecified sources per WP:NRV). Widefox ; talk 00:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Afd nominator is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC).
 * (ec) That may come across a bit WP:OWN. I tagged with WP:Prof before nominating. Any part in particular? "h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution since their validity is not, at present, completely accepted," I'm sure Randykitty is spot-on, I've already said I have no objection. Sure WP:NRV "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation..." but "...However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive...". Xxanthippe, (WP:N or) WP:Prof is a guideline not a rule, but WP:V is policy. Widefox ; talk 11:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To address point 1, the citation numbers are sourced in the article to Google Scholar. And, as regards point 2, the very guideline that the nominator links says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thanks, I'd missed that. (see above "challenged") Nom withdrawn. Widefox ; talk 11:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.